If a commission is structured to include two Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent, then the Republicans ought to be Republicans, not RINOs, the Democrats Democrats, not DINOs and the independent independent, and not a IINO.

The Commission is structured to have two members chosen by the state Democratic establishment, two members chosen by the state Republican establishment, and one member chosen by the other four.As was done.

The Arizona Constitution http://www.azleg.gov/const/arizona_constitution.pdf disagrees with you most vigorously. It explicitly notes that the fifth member cannot be either a Republican or Democrat [as long as those are the two major parties], and must meet criteria for being, and appearing to be, impartial.

Nor does the four commisioners pick the fifth.

They don't? Oh. So I'm misremembering that detail. *shrugs* Who did?

Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally

"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya

Honestly looking at things from a non-partisan perspective I don't think this map is all that unfair.

4-2-3 is fair - fairest possible, in fact, and pretty much resulting unless you try to rule it out - but cooking all three competitive districts to actually favor Democrats, with two of them pretty much bordering on secure D, is clearly not.

Yes, the law does not say that after you meet the VRA, then gerrymander to make it "fair." And the reason, putting aside the cooked data, that it is "semi "fair," as muon2 with his little formula noted, is precisely that. Darn it, if that is the law in AZ, it should be the law in MA!

Honestly looking at things from a non-partisan perspective I don't think this map is all that unfair.

4-2-3 is fair - fairest possible, in fact, and pretty much resulting unless you try to rule it out - but cooking all three competitive districts to actually favor Democrats, with two of them pretty much bordering on secure D, is clearly not.

Yes, the law does not say that after you meet the VRA, then gerrymander to make it "fair." And the reason, putting aside the cooked data, that it is "semi "fair," as muon2 with his little formula noted, is precisely that. Darn it, if that is the law in AZ, it should be the law in MA!

Should be the law in Texas too.

And Illinois. Yes I know, you can play this game longer than I can this time.

Yes, the law does not say that after you meet the VRA, then gerrymander to make it "fair."

Effectively it does. Since it presents all the other criteria, which contradict each other to an extent, more or less as one blur, and "communities of interest" and "geographical features" are undefined and unmeasurable anyways, it effectively comes down to "pass the map that satisfies these criteria that has the most competitive districts".

Yeah... bring that law to Massachusetts and you're forced to draw a winnable district for Republicans. Since it can be done without doing too much violence to the map (not nearly as much as the current intra-democratic incumbent-protection-mander does, for instance).

Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally

"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya

Yes, the law does not say that after you meet the VRA, then gerrymander to make it "fair."

Effectively it does. Since it presents all the other criteria, which contradict each other to an extent, more or less as one blur, and "communities of interest" and "geographical features" are undefined and unmeasurable anyways, it effectively comes down to "pass the map that satisfies these criteria that has the most competitive districts".

Yeah... bring that law to Massachusetts and you're forced to draw a winnable district for Republicans. Since it can be done without doing too much violence to the map (not nearly as much as the current intra-democratic incumbent-protection-mander does, for instance).

You should send that to the AZ Dems to put in their brief, because that rather weak, but perhaps subjective enough to get some traction, argument, is about all the Dems have going for them really, other than judicial deference to administrative discretion absent clear error.

That's a pretty big one, though - that was pretty much all the court bothered to point out in squashing last time's lawsuit.

I forget who was suing then, probably not one major party as a bloc though.

Yes it is. It needs careful massaging, which is why I posted that rant about how I would have handled matters as a Pubbie on the Commission. Basically the law just needs to be canned. It just didn't work out.

California's Commission has 5 Dems, 5 Reps and 4 Indies, and requires at least 3 votes from each bloc for passage. (It passed 12-2 with both nays being Republicans, by the way, so it got the bare minimum of minority consent.) Similarly, you could make the final passage in Arizona require four votes.

Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally

"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya

California's Commission has 5 Dems, 5 Reps and 4 Indies, and requires at least 3 votes from each bloc for passage. (It passed 12-2 with both nays being Republicans, by the way, so it got the bare minimum of minority consent.) Similarly, you could make the final passage in Arizona require four votes.

That would help. Of course the Pubbies on the CA commission were pathetic too, but I really can't get too angry over that map, and a lot of CD's are close enough, that I kind of like the incentive it offers to Pubbies to stop being way out there in never-never land. In a word, I fantasize it might strengthen a bit my little microscopic wing of the party. But hey, here on this forum, my wing is close to half the party! No doubt, that is in part due to my inspired "leadership."

California's Commission has 5 Dems, 5 Reps and 4 Indies, and requires at least 3 votes from each bloc for passage. (It passed 12-2 with both nays being Republicans, by the way, so it got the bare minimum of minority consent.) Similarly, you could make the final passage in Arizona require four votes.

That would help. Of course the Pubbies on the CA commission were pathetic too, but I really can't get too angry over that map, and a lot of CD's are close enough, that I kind of like the incentive it offers to Pubbies to stop being way out there in never-never land. In a word, I fantasize it might strengthen a bit my little microscopic wing of the party. But hey, here on this forum, my wing is close to half the party! No doubt, that is in part due to my inspired "leadership."

So you don't think at least one Republican in Socal was F'ed? Calvert or Miller's district was finished. Unless you think dumping a bit of OC into a Riverside district is "fair". Drier's case is more complicating. In the end the VRA constraints are what screwed him. Can you draw a better district for him? While drawing a VRA hispanic district in SBD county and the SGV as well as giving an Asian heavy district to Chu?

And do you think Gallegly and Capps should switch portions of their districts so they can both be safe and live happily ever after? The point of the redistricting commission was to NOT draw an incumbent gerrymander!

Also do you have any concerns in Norcal? I want to really find out what you consider to be so unfair about the map. Costa's district is only 54-45 Obama. OMGZ UNFAIR!!!!!!!

I haven't ranted that much about the CA map, except I found that Long Beach-Westminster thing troubling, but I have not really studied it in any real depth at all, and no next to nothing about norcal except for characterizations about it, because the place is just so far away from what I know and love.

Sure I could draw a much better CD for Drier while keeping the Hispanics happy. That isn't hard. Ditto for that Baca CD, which excludes for example Highland. Just why is that? As for the Simi Valley exclusion fror the Ventura County CD, it looks like that actually might be the most logical thing to exclude, even though it does hurt the Pubbies. I am a bit confused why another real Hispanic CD was not drawn out of the Coachella Valley and parts of Riverside adjacent, etc., like I did, which would have helped the Pubbies, but maybe there was a reason. Maybe they thought it just reached too far.

In any event, it would take a lot of work really for me to make a case worthy of my posting it (assuming it can be made), and I just don't have the energy right now. And I am headed back east next week for a week. Will you miss me?

As for the Coachella valley, Bono Mack gets another district that is a perfect Republican gerrymander. Just look at the partisan numbers. Not that I don't think it makes sense, but it is what it is. The problem for the Republicans is that they lost the state 61-37 in 2008. And if you really think the Republicans did as well in California as they did nationwide in 2010(I am of the opinion the wave didn't reach California, but can under different circumstances), then you pubbies have more to worry about than some maps.

I agree with you about the LGB-Westminster CD as you already know, but the Drier district seems like it needed to be drawn. I will look more into the Highland exclusion thing though.

And yeah Simi Valley needed to be taken out of Ventura county. Or you push the Santa Clarita district into the SFV, thus putting Thousand Oaks into a Dem district. You cannot have a Rep gerrymander in Ventura County, sorry!

California's Commission has 5 Dems, 5 Reps and 4 Indies, and requires at least 3 votes from each bloc for passage. (It passed 12-2 with both nays being Republicans, by the way, so it got the bare minimum of minority consent.) Similarly, you could make the final passage in Arizona require four votes.

That would help. Of course the Pubbies on the CA commission were pathetic too, but I really can't get too angry over that map, and a lot of CD's are close enough, that I kind of like the incentive it offers to Pubbies to stop being way out there in never-never land. In a word, I fantasize it might strengthen a bit my little microscopic wing of the party. But hey, here on this forum, my wing is close to half the party! No doubt, that is in part due to my inspired "leadership."

It would be a lot better to let ordinary decent citizens draw the maps, rather than trying to form panels of impartial experts chosen based on their partiality.

California's Commission has 5 Dems, 5 Reps and 4 Indies, and requires at least 3 votes from each bloc for passage. (It passed 12-2 with both nays being Republicans, by the way, so it got the bare minimum of minority consent.) Similarly, you could make the final passage in Arizona require four votes.

That would help. Of course the Pubbies on the CA commission were pathetic too, but I really can't get too angry over that map, and a lot of CD's are close enough, that I kind of like the incentive it offers to Pubbies to stop being way out there in never-never land. In a word, I fantasize it might strengthen a bit my little microscopic wing of the party. But hey, here on this forum, my wing is close to half the party! No doubt, that is in part due to my inspired "leadership."

It would be a lot better to let ordinary decent citizens draw the maps, rather than trying to form panels of impartial experts chosen based on their partiality.

I was thinking about that. Pick up some teenaged girls from a TRL taping (is that still going on?) and let them draw pretty shapes on the map.

If a commission is structured to include two Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent, then the Republicans ought to be Republicans, not RINOs, the Democrats Democrats, not DINOs and the independent independent, and not a IINO.

The Commission is structured to have two members chosen by the state Democratic establishment, two members chosen by the state Republican establishment, and one member chosen by the other four.As was done.

The Arizona Constitution http://www.azleg.gov/const/arizona_constitution.pdf disagrees with you most vigorously. It explicitly notes that the fifth member cannot be either a Republican or Democrat [as long as those are the two major parties], and must meet criteria for being, and appearing to be, impartial.

Nor does the four commisioners pick the fifth.

They don't? Oh. So I'm misremembering that detail. *shrugs* Who did?

And, again, you misrepresented the fact that the fifth member must be imparial and neither a Democrat or a Republican.

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.

California's Commission has 5 Dems, 5 Reps and 4 Indies, and requires at least 3 votes from each bloc for passage.

This is a distinction that does not make a difference because the same people whom picked the five Democrats picked the five Republicans and four independents. The folks that conducted the inteviews, and winnowed the candidates chose not just the commissioners, but, the overwhelming likely outcome of the commission.

Quote

(It passed 12-2 with both nays being Republicans, by the way, so it got the bare minimum of minority consent.) Similarly, you could make the final passage in Arizona require four votes.

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.

You know, I hope the Republicans still win some minor amendments to the map. And for that it would probably have been useful to step the rhetoric down rather than up.

(The first district really, really, really needs to retreat out of either Pima or Cochise, preferrably Pima. The boundary there makes no sense whatsoever and serves no purpose except gerrying, so is probably strictly speaking against the Commission's rules even as I and the Dems interprete them. I'd also like to see some alterations around the 4th to 6th and 6th to 9th boundaries... which I'm not sure would have much of a partisan effect.)

Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally

"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya

Yes, the law does not say that after you meet the VRA, then gerrymander to make it "fair."

Effectively it does. Since it presents all the other criteria, which contradict each other to an extent, more or less as one blur, and "communities of interest" and "geographical features" are undefined and unmeasurable anyways, it effectively comes down to "pass the map that satisfies these criteria that has the most competitive districts".

Yeah... bring that law to Massachusetts and you're forced to draw a winnable district for Republicans. Since it can be done without doing too much violence to the map (not nearly as much as the current intra-democratic incumbent-protection-mander does, for instance).

Geographical features are reasonably defined in the proposition as city and county limits. The Michigan standards are of course quite reasonable checks on partisan gerrymandering.

A district consisting of Tempe, the Southern bit of Arizona, Chandler, and the Eastern Part of Mesa (2 municipal breaks rather than 4) comes in at 49.9% McCain. I linked one earlier. I can reasonably infer that the 9th district zigzagging gains them about 3 points.

You know, I hope the Republicans still win some minor amendments to the map. And for that it would probably have been useful to step the rhetoric down rather than up.

(The first district really, really, really needs to retreat out of either Pima or Cochise, preferrably Pima. The boundary there makes no sense whatsoever and serves no purpose except gerrying, so is probably strictly speaking against the Commission's rules even as I and the Dems interprete them. I'd also like to see some alterations around the 4th to 6th and 6th to 9th boundaries... which I'm not sure would have much of a partisan effect.)

Isn't the game over for the CD's as far as the Commission is concerned? Oh, there is a comment period. Meanwhile, it does seem the Pubbies have declared total war on the map and the Commission, the Dems are stonewalling, and the Pubbies are going to use both judicial and legislative remedies to get rid of the Dem commissioners and Mathis and/or the map or both. There is a court hearing on Nov 7 on both parties' lawsuits.

If there is any justice, the nostrum that pigs get fat, and hogs get slaughtered, will come to pass.

So a new commission gets put in place and a new map drawn Or is it possible the courts draw it?

Maybe they should just use my map. A more Republican 9th in the Phoenix area and a more Democratic Tucson district. And Grijalva is told to keep his mustachioed face shut.

I think at the moment, it is just total chaos. Just what the grand Pubbie plan is to kill this map, is probably under wraps. But it does seem that they mean to use their power to kill it, one way or the other, unless and until the courts somehow stop them. There was no mention of another referenda to end the commission, and I don't know how feasible that is, but that in the end is the nuke option if all else fails.

The Dems + Mathis don't seem interested in backing down either and modifying their map. (They are clearly not getting their advice from Lewis, who might in this instance be rather helpful to them.) They have been pushing the nuke button with just as much fervor as the Pubbies. It is as if both sides are actually really enjoying this cafeteria food fight. Maybe everyone is on PCP.

Bottom line, Republicans just aren't going to get as many safe seats as they like, not with any makeup of the commission. As it stands, there are only 2 D+ PVI districts on the map, which is hardly a Democratic gerrymander. No party owns the congressional seats, so it's a bit ridiculous for the governor to claim the map is "thievery". Sometimes you just have to get over it, that's what Democrats in many states have to do.

Logged

Creepy your fascination with me. Don't worry, this is just the penultimate.

Bottom line, Republicans just aren't going to get as many safe seats as they like, not with any makeup of the commission. As it stands, there are only 2 D+ PVI districts on the map, which is hardly a Democratic gerrymander. No party owns the congressional seats, so it's a bit ridiculous for the governor to claim the map is "thievery". Sometimes you just have to get over it, that's what Democrats in many states have to do.

I of course have been ranting that I think the baseline partisan numbers are cooked, so we end up with two safe Dem Hispanic CD's (regarding which everyone and the VRA agree), one weak safe Dem CD (+ 4.2% Dem or something), one weak lean Dem CD (+ 2.15 % Dem), and one tossup CD with a slight Dem tilt (Dem +1%), and three Pubbie packed CD's. You might check out the stuff on the thread above on that one, where a few of us weigh in on that one and make up your own mind. I also think the Dems didn't follow the law in good faith, and did indeed do a gerrymander. Whether it was bad enough to actually constitute an abuse of discretion (a high standard), is another matter. It would and will take careful spadework to kill the map that way. But the Dems seem to want to be as helpful as possible in that regard, given their conduct. They need better advice themselves!

Bottom line, Republicans just aren't going to get as many safe seats as they like, not with any makeup of the commission. As it stands, there are only 2 D+ PVI districts on the map, which is hardly a Democratic gerrymander. No party owns the congressional seats, so it's a bit ridiculous for the governor to claim the map is "thievery". Sometimes you just have to get over it, that's what Democrats in many states have to do.

They don't have to get over it when they have the power to boot the commission.

Bottom line, Republicans just aren't going to get as many safe seats as they like, not with any makeup of the commission. As it stands, there are only 2 D+ PVI districts on the map, which is hardly a Democratic gerrymander. No party owns the congressional seats, so it's a bit ridiculous for the governor to claim the map is "thievery". Sometimes you just have to get over it, that's what Democrats in many states have to do.

They don't have to get over it when they have the power to boot the commission.

Meaning the members or the whole thing? I don't think a proposition to overturn fair redistricting will be overturned. It just won't. Maybe if they played it more safe and only had a proposition to overturn the current map. I don't even know how that would work though.